Rajasthan Court January 2003 Judgments
World Tex Limited and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC261; 2004CriLJ420; RLW2003(2)Raj855; 2003(1)WLC775; 2003(1)WLN614
Goyal, J. 1. This S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 20.1.2001 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate (Behror), District Alwar took cognizance for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act, 1881) against the accused petitioners.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant- respondent No. 2 filed a complaint on 4.10.2000 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Behror against the accused petitioner company and its Managing Director and other directors with the averments that the accused company had business dealings with the complainant-respondent-company. During the course of the business three post dated cheques respectively for Rs. 2,12,104/-, Rs.4,85,105/- and Rs. 2,91,062/- were issued on 30.4.2000. These cheques were issued for payment of outstanding balance of the amount.3. When the complainant presented these cheques in the bank, they were dishonoured on 16.8.2000 with...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Khan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2654; RLW2003(3)Raj1659; 2003(2)WLC735
Bansal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 25, 1997 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa whereby the appellants-Babu Khan and Lallu Khan have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC respectively. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW-3 Yaseen Khan son ofKhaju Khan Musalman resident of Ramgarh Pachwara submitted a written reportEx.P.4 to SHO Police Station Nangal Rajawatan District Dausa on April 4, 1996 at 11.45PM. It was, interalia, stated in the written report that today at about 7.00 PM he and hisbrother Lallu Khan (appellant) sitting on 'Chabutara' situated in their locality werehaving discussion about money...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj209; 2003(2)WLC47
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as member of the UIT Alwar on 4-3-2002 by the State of Rajasthan under Sections 9, 12 and 14 (Ka) of the UIT Act, 1959. Earlier the petitioner was Chairman of UIT, Alwar. 2. The State Government vide order dated 12-4-2002 withdrew the nomination of the petitioner and cancelled the appointment order of the petitioner dated 4-3-2002. 3. Aggrieving and dissatisfied with the order of cancellation dated 12-4-2002 the petitioner preferred this writ petition and assailed the order dated 12-4-2002 on the ground that the order dated 4-3-2002 cannot be cancelled without affording opportunity of being heard. Since no opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner and the order dated 12-4-2002 has been passed by the State Government which is per se contrary to the principle of natural justice. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further assailed the order dated 12-4-2002 on the ground that in the order no reason has been assign...
Tag this Judgment!Mangi Lal and ors. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2146; 2003(3)WLC352
Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. These appeals are filed against the orders of the courts below, wherein, the valuation of the suit was less than Rs. 25,000/-. The valuation being less than Rs. 25,000/-, today when these appeals are being considered as second appeals, the question arises as to whether such appeals can be entertained or not.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in these two appeals has urged that the basic question which requires consideration of this court is the import of Section 6 of Genera! Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'General Clauses 1897).4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as and when the lis starts, the right of appeal, if provided at that time accrues to the litigant as a vested right. In terms of amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure as introduced in 1999 and 2002, there had been no attempt by the Legislature to take away any vested right. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as '...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Dakhudevi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(5)WLC720; 2003(2)WLN596
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Vide order dated 18.12.2002, the appeal has already been ordered to be abated as against respondents No. 6 and 7. The respondent No. 7 is owner of the vehicle, while the respondents No. 1 to 5 are claimants. Since the appeal has already abated against the owner, the impugned decree has become final in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased owner.3. In that view of the matter, if the appeal is allowed, it will give rise to two conflicting decrees, and therefore, the entire appeal abates.4. The same is, therefore dismissed as abated....
Tag this Judgment!Tahal Singh Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC571; 2003(1)WLN454
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 29.7.1991 with a prayer that impugned judgment dtd. 17.2.1988 (Annex. 7) passed by the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3) by which the suit filed by petitioner Tahal Singh under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) was dismissed, judgment dtd. 8.5.1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (respondent No. 2) by which the judgment dtd. 17.2.1988 (Annex. 7) passed by the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3) was affirmed and the judgment dtd. 10.7.1991 (Annex. 9) passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1) by which the Board of Revenue upheld the judgment dtd. 8.5.1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (respondent No. 2) be quashed and set aside and the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan S...
Tag this Judgment!Lok Vikas Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Lok Vikas Finance Corporati ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas355(Raj); [2003]46SCL146(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the application, the reply filed thereto by the official liquidator and the rejoinder filed by the applicant.2. This is an application under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.3. In the application prayer has been made to allow the applicant-bank to remain out of winding up proceedings and to sell the assets of the company under its charge, as secured creditor for realising its dues.4. Learned counsel for the non-applicant does not dispute that the applicant is a secured creditor of the company in liquidation and he has no objection in case the court allows the applicant-bank to remain out of winding up proceedings and permits to sell the assets under its charge. However, he submitted that it is a winding up under the court's supervision and controls and all the actions of the applicant are subject to the sanction of the court.5. Shri Sharma, learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nirmal Kumar Soorana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)552; [2003]263ITR322(Raj)
1. By this reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that capital gains accrued to the assessee and was chargeable to tax in the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that no books of account were maintained by the assessee for such capital gains and that this income from capital gains pertains to the financial year ended on March 31, 1976, being the previous year for the assessment year 1976-77, is perverse ?' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in excluding such capital gains from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' 2. Narendra Kumar Soorana (Individual), Mannalal Soorana (I...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Singh Vs. Arun Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2050; 2003(2)WLC27
Sharma, J.1. The petitioner who was defeated by a margin of 99 votes from DEEG Assembly Constituency, filed this election petition with the following prayer:i to allow recount of all the ballots of third and fourth round of counting of the Deeg Assembly Constituency; and if the same is not possible on account of mixing of ballots of all the rounds, then all the ballots of all the four rounds be ordered to be recounted andii to declare void and set aside the election of Respondent No. 1 andinstead declare the petitioner to be elected as Member of RajasthanLegislative Assembly from Deeg (70) Assembly Constituency of Rajasthan, for which the result was declared on 28th of November 1998and a certificate be ordered to be granted to the petitioner of havingbeing elected as Member of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and aConsequential order for notifying the election of the petitioner in theofficial Gazette, and to award the cost of the election petition to thepetitioner.2. In the election for ...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Laxmi Traders and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj99
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the impugned judgment. The first one being that the price of Rs. 4300/- per metric tonne was rightly charged as Hanumangarh fell under the administrative subordination of Jaipur, and the plaintiff could not claim to be liable to pay the price on the basis of the price payable at Chandigarh, merely on the basis of geographical nearness.3. The other contention raised is that the plaintiff had purchased the wheat with eyes open, and was under no pressure to purchase it at a higher price, consequently, he could not maintain the present suit after three years.4. 1 have heard learned counsel, perused the impugned judgment, and have been taken through the relevant scheme floated by the Food Corporation for open sale of wheat, so also the statement of the defendant's witness, Punamchand Dua.5. In my view, it is clear that according to the scheme, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »